Plastic Pitches v Grass Pitches

[Tiger93]

Just think, if rugby hadn't given into the spin surrounding 4G pitches and how great they are to the game, we wouldn't even need to discuss how we might consider resting players with fragile knees.

Totally agree.

Shambles that top flight Rugby fixtures are played on these surfaces. Im all for surfaces like City have at the King Power but not the Worcester, Sarries, Falcons type.

[johnthegriff]

I don't like these pitches but do they actually cause injuries, I am not aware of Saaracens, Newcastle, Worcester or Cardiff players sustaining more knee injuries than other teams. Might it just be that when one of our players gets injured in one of these matches we blame the pitch when the same injury on a more traditional surface is just one of those things.

[BFG]

I don't like these pitches but do they actually cause injuries, I am not aware of Saaracens, Newcastle, Worcester or Cardiff players sustaining more knee injuries than other teams. Might it just be that when one of our players gets injured in one of these matches we blame the pitch when the same injury on a more traditional surface is just one of those things.

Nothing actually wrong with the pitches, changing from surface to surface is the only real issue in my opinion!
Leicester should've changed to the same type pitch as Sarries in my opinion, it's faster and the benefits of regularly training on one could've been great, my lad used to train on one and the surface encourages faster play which he loved, and everyone gets that bit fitter and faster in my opinion!
They could've also used Welford Road as a training base with one of those type of artificial pitches installed.

[ourla]

The pitch & dodgy knees, feet is an issue, Scarlets didn't pick a few against Cardiff around Xmas.

It's only an issue if you make it an issue.

Slater doesn't like it,

He doesn't play for us anymore. Plus, he is just one player.

the game should be played on real grass, if its a mud bath, its a mud bath the top clubs should be able to afford decent pitch care, if they can't they should prioritise better, should never of been allowed on the first place.

Unfortunately it required more than just being a dinosaur to not allow it. There has to be a thing called evidence of injuries.

[Rugbyflanker]

Evidence of greater risk of certain injuries here,and this is without taking the contact into consideration!
http://www.naturalgrass.com/en/influenc ... -injuries/

[BFG]

Evidence of greater risk of certain injuries here,and this is without taking the contact into consideration!
http://www.naturalgrass.com/en/influenc ... -injuries/

That's not evidence IMO, it's an argument!
Artificial pitches are fine, it just takes time to adjust to them, it's like any form of training or riding a bike, the more you do it the better you get at it!
Unfortunately we have a mix of different surfaces, and I think it's easier to adjust to natural grass from more exposure to artificial pitches than vice versa!

[Tiger_in_Birmingham]

Evidence of greater risk of certain injuries here,and this is without taking the contact into consideration!
http://www.naturalgrass.com/en/influenc ... -injuries/

That's not evidence IMO, it's an argument!
Artificial pitches are fine, it just takes time to adjust to them, it's like any form of training or riding a bike, the more you do it the better you get at it!
Unfortunately we have a mix of different surfaces, and I think it's easier to adjust to natural grass from more exposure to artificial pitches than vice versa!

didn't read this bit then?

Indeed, knee joint loads were higher (+6 to 21%) on AT compared to natural ones, as well as ankle joint loads (up to 16-26%). Furthermore, valgus and internal rotation of knee joint during sidestep cutting were significantly higher on AT compared with the natural counterparts (+43% and 36% respectively). Since the ACL injury is mainly involved in combination of high levels of knee valgus and internal rotation strains, natural grass surfaces and especially the natural reinforced grass (HY, AirFibr technology) appeared to be safer for players.

[Rugbyflanker]

Yeah read BFG ;)

[BFG]

Evidence of greater risk of certain injuries here,and this is without taking the contact into consideration!
http://www.naturalgrass.com/en/influenc ... -injuries/

That's not evidence IMO, it's an argument!
Artificial pitches are fine, it just takes time to adjust to them, it's like any form of training or riding a bike, the more you do it the better you get at it!
Unfortunately we have a mix of different surfaces, and I think it's easier to adjust to natural grass from more exposure to artificial pitches than vice versa!

didn't read this bit then?

Indeed, knee joint loads were higher (+6 to 21%) on AT compared to natural ones, as well as ankle joint loads (up to 16-26%). Furthermore, valgus and internal rotation of knee joint during sidestep cutting were significantly higher on AT compared with the natural counterparts (+43% and 36% respectively). Since the ACL injury is mainly involved in combination of high levels of knee valgus and internal rotation strains, natural grass surfaces and especially the natural reinforced grass (HY, AirFibr technology) appeared to be safer for players.

It's a one sided argument, IMO!
Is that study on all regular grass players?
It's all well and good providing those kind of stats, but it doesn't provide evidence on the strength of the individuals studied or the amount of exposure to differing surfaces!
There may well be more stress on the knee joints on an artificial surface, but are the stress loads reduced on those with more exposure to the artificial surface?
I'd add, why do athletes perform resistance training, this study would make the participation of resistance training to anything completely pointless, and yet athletes still perform it!

[DeadlyDunc]

Perhaps the fact the evidence comes from a website called www.naturalgrass.com May suggest a degree of bias?

Working in this industry I can assure you that there are plenty of studies paid for/requested by the artificial grass companies like FieldTurf and TenCate that show injuries are less prevalent on artificial grasses.

As with natural turf there are good and bad artificial grass surfaces and coupled with that, good and bad shockpad systems and on top of that good and bad installers.

Just as there are with hybrid systems which most impartial observers would argue are the best option for elite rugby and football, myself included.

[ourla]

Evidence of greater risk of certain injuries here,and this is without taking the contact into consideration!
http://www.naturalgrass.com/en/influenc ... -injuries/

That is a study paid for by a company flogging hybrid pitches. I see the AT is 3rd gen. I suspect it was a poor quality one. And that is just for starters, I suspect there are many flaws.

[ellis9]

It doesn't need evidence.

All 12 clubs are playing in the same league so should play on the same surface. Whether that's grass or plastic is up to Premiership Rugby. (Obviously it should be grass). There shouldn't be different surfaces for different clubs.

When players play tennis at Wimbledon, they all play on grass courts.

When players play The Open, they play the same course.

When athletes run a race at The Olympics, they use the same track.

You get the point.

[kend]

The RFU have been looking at injury rates on artificial pitches for a few seasons - the data shows no difference in injury rates on grass/artificial turf. Obviously the sample size is small. One of the Universities (can't remember which) has been commissioned to look at player management and see whether clubs with artificial surfaces take a different approach (which might explain why grass players complain of increased muscle soreness following a game on artificial grass).

[ellis9]

My opinion has nothing to do with injuries. It is based on the fact that all teams have to abide by the same laws and rules and regulations to be a participant of Premiership Rugby. This should also apply to all teams playing on the same surface.

[ourla]

It doesn't need evidence.

It needs evidence if you are going to ban them.

All 12 clubs are playing in the same league so should play on the same surface.

Leicester have a hybdrid surface not pure grass. Should that be allowed?

Whether that's grass or plastic is up to Premiership Rugby.

Correction, whether teams have to play on the same surface or not is up to Premiership Rugby. They say not.

(Obviously it should be grass). There shouldn't be different surfaces for different clubs.

It's not obvious and the people running the league say otherwise.

When players play tennis at Wimbledon, they all play on grass courts.

When players play The Open, they play the same course.

When athletes run a race at The Olympics, they use the same track.

You get the point.

Sorry chum but no I don't get the point. Wimbledon, the Open and the Olympics are all individual tournaments or events. It is not "a season" and there is no home or away team.